This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

We don't have UHC, so they aren't taking it for that. But yes, taxes pay for ****. No one denies that. But, we pay now. Right now. And we pay more than other countries, for less. Not sure why you think that is good. But do always keep in mind my argument: we need to cut spending and increase revenue. To do this, we should also clarify where we spend money. Health care is one of the places I think we should. That's just an argument. Not crying at all. Not saying poor anyone.

Your argument never did make any sense the first time I heard it from Obama himself. You don't need more revenue, you need to cut spending. There is no reason someone should be taxed as much as people are taxed in this country. None. We need to slash government(not all once you understand) and move on, but what you actually want will not eliminate the debt, and will just take more money from people to provide favors for people just because they can't buy a service or a business does the government a reach around. All you want is dependence and that is it.

On that, you're completely wrong about. You pay for others, and with no mechanism to monitor how much you pay over what was used. Those countries have better access. Do better overall, despite some problems, than we do. And I suspect, if we really tried, we could do even better.

Better access means almost nothing. It does not in any way reflect the care given. You didn't even say I was wrong either. The care is more available because the government gives it away with others money and its only cheaper because the price is controlled which is why those problems exist. You don't want to admit that the benefits are the cause of the problems, do you?

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Not remotely the same thing. Negotiating for working conditions and pay is much more specific, with different interests. So, no I don't buy your premise in the slightest. Sorry.

Yes it is, they have a voice to democratically elect legislators, who can help decide what the pay and benefits are for state employees.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla

Yes it is, they have a voice to democratically elect legislators, who can help decide what the pay and benefits are for state employees.

Again, not the same. Eveyone gets to vote for their representatives, but the private sector also gets to negotiate their contracts. Penalizing government workers, and give them no say in their specific employment? No, your aguement simply doesn't hold up. This is different from an election. It's a specific negotiation.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Originally Posted by AdamT

Virtually everyone who has health insurance does that year after year. You may not see the whole tab if your employer provides insurance, but rest assured that you ARE paying for it in the form of lower wages and other benefits.

I'm well aware, so what? One of the problems that government created is that they have put another wall in front of you and the doctor and taken more control from you as a consumer by pushing healthcare coverage to be provided by employers.

Government is not driving up the price of medical care: private industry is. That's just how it is. In any case, I wasn't addressing you specifically.

Are you aware why the insurance company uses the profit model it uses today? Why care got more expensive for seniors and the poor after they picked it up and why that lead to Medicare? Answer those questions if you want.

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Again, not the same. Eveyone gets to vote for their representatives, but the private sector also gets to negotiate their contracts. Penalizing government workers, and give them no say in their specific employment? No, your aguement simply doesn't hold up. This is different from an election. It's a specific negotiation.

A specific negotiation, which the employees are in a monopoly, where they can hold the public hostage to their demands.
When I can legally stop paying taxes to support these workers, when they strike, I'll support their right to unionize.

Until then, I do not.
It is an unethical, unfair relationship.
The unions have become rent seeking bodies in this area.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Originally Posted by Henrin

Your argument never did make any sense the first time I heard it from Obama himself. You don't need more revenue, you need to cut spending. There is no reason someone should be taxed as much as people are taxed in this country.

There's actually a very good reason for all the spending: most people like what it buys and would rather see taxes go up than see, e.g. Medicare and Social Security cut.

People in this country are taxed at a lower rate than people in most civilized countries.

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Originally Posted by Henrin

Your argument never did make any sense the first time I heard it from Obama himself. You don't need more revenue, you need to cut spending. There is no reason someone should be taxed as much as people are taxed in this country. None. We need to slash government(not all once you understand) and move on, but what you actually want will not eliminate the debt, and will just take more money from people to provide favors for people just because they can't buy a service or a business does the government a reach around. All you want is dependence and that is it.

You need both. That's what I do. When the need is there, I work more and I cut spending. The logic is sound. You can't cut enough spending to handle this alone. Nor can you increase revenue enough. The only logical approach is to do both. You kid yourself otherwise.

Better access means almost nothing. It does not in any way reflect the care given. You didn't even say I was wrong either. The care is more available because the government gives it away with others money and its only cheaper because the price is controlled which is why those problems exist. You don't want to admit that the benefits are the cause of the problems, do you?

Allow me to repeat;

Originally Posted by Boo

On that, you're completely wrong about

You should examine single pay systems more carefully. There is little to nothing given. It is paid for. And some have some controls, others less so. Many are two teired, with the ability to pay for privately and to buy your own insurance. What is assured is minimal and adequate care. The rich can still buy more. Our actual care is not significantly better, overall or even for the rich, who get damned good care everywhere.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla

A specific negotiation, which the employees are in a monopoly, where they can hold the public hostage to their demands.
When I can legally stop paying taxes to support these workers, when they strike, I'll support their right to unionize.

Until then, I do not.
It is an unethical, unfair relationship.
The unions have become rent seeking bodies in this area.

They are not a monopoly. No one is held hostage anymore than with any other such service. Tax dollars are not targeted to specific government jobs, but we have shut the government down from time to time.

Employees, government or private, have the right to negotiate collectively, and they should have that right.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

is he willing to do the hard work they did? envy has no place in a discussion like this

You should go back and read the post you replied to.... MINE - in which i discussed INHERITED WEALTH... not those who deserved it through the very hard work and labor you mentioned. Here it is for you

Hard work!?!?!? Sacrifices!???!? Perhaps for some. The deserving. But for others the real question is how can Boo go back in time and select his parents based on the wealth they have and will pass onto him?

Again, there is no point in your telling Boo to do what they did to get rich because he cannot go back in time and pick a set of wealthy parents... Mumsy and Daddykins who will dress him in silk diapers and have him changed by the upstairs maid while both sip a drink at the private country club.

That is not ENVY - it is REALITY.

__________________________________________________ _
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Re: Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Originally Posted by Henrin

I'm well aware, so what? One of the problems that government created is that they have put another wall in front of you and the doctor and taken more control from you as a consumer by pushing healthcare coverage to be provided by employers.

I agree that the same deductions should be available to individuals, but I don't think it would make much difference. Employers can negotiate better prices than individuals. Private insurers, private doctors, private hospitals, private pharma companies: the private sector is why our medical care costs are high relative to nationalized systems.

Are you aware why the insurance company uses the profit model it uses today? Why care got more expensive for seniors and the poor after they picked it up and why that lead to Medicare? Answer those questions if you want.